• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which is a Violation of Free Speech

Which is a violation of free speech/association

  • A private social media company holding users to its terms of service

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • A private social media company choosing who it does business with consistent with anti-discrim. laws

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • POTUS compelling a private social media company to give him a platform to spread propaganda

    Votes: 32 97.0%

  • Total voters
    33
There is no meaningful sense in which Twitter is a "private company". Also commercial freedom of association has not existed in this country for over half a century.
Oh, so Twitter is a government owned entity, subject to the terms of the 1st amendment? Good to know.
 
None of those are violations of free speech but the first two should be. Rights need to change as technology changes. Free speech would be pretty meaningless if it was limited only to forms of communication available in 1787. Social media has become as integral to communication as the telephone has, and should be regulated the same way.
When the government arrests you for expressing your opinion in any forum, come see me. However, if you violate the TOS you agreed to when you made your account, there is NOTHING, no law, no principle, no virtue that can legally or morally override their decision.
 
None of those are violations of free speech but the first two should be. Rights need to change as technology changes. Free speech would be pretty meaningless if it was limited only to forms of communication available in 1787. Social media has become as integral to communication as the telephone has, and should be regulated the same way.

So, you think Debate Politics should be legally forced to allow trolling and spam?
 
If one is free to discriminate (aka deny service to) folks based on political affiliation or viewpoint is it then OK (for a business) to have (exercise?) the viewpoint that only people which they agree with (politically) will be served?
He got jacked for lying.

The Capitol was stormed based on the bald faced lie that the election was stolen.

Told by lying liars who knew full well they were lying when they lied.

It's not about "speech".

It's about "reality".

Trumpies do not live in the same reality as the rest of us. Haven't for years now.
 
There is no meaningful sense in which Twitter is a "private company". Also commercial freedom of association has not existed in this country for over half a century.

2i36aqs94t501.jpg
 
They let you be there (for free, no less) to capture your browsing history, examine your ‘cookie’ collection (and any other files they may care to peek at) and to sell that valuable personal data to any and all willing to pay for it. Keep pressing that “I agree” button without reading the fine print. ;)
That's why this site is my only "social media".

I knew they were harvesting behavioral data when the first grocery store club cards came out. Got a bunch of friends to swap cards so only garbage data would be collected. (I use them now, but I don't use the 7-11 one where I get my junk food. Don't want my health insurance company to find out!)
 
A deliberately false premises poll.

First, NO companies more discriminate based upon race than Big Tech - run by the richest white men on earth who are pure racist. Check their companies hiring. They don't hire blacks or Latinos except as janitors, groundskeepers and other bottom pay jobs - and very, very few. Blacks and Latinos don't add up to 10%.

Second, the terms of service of Twitter (and the others) is that they can ban anyone for "any or no reason." That is the EXACT language. So violating the TOS really just means "anyone who posts anything against against our profit and power interests."

This also means that the richest white men on earth are exempt for laws that outlaw corporate political contributions and limit personal contributions. Most companies can not contribute money, goods or services to candidates and doing so is a crime. Individuals are limited $2800 contributions to federal candidates. BUT not Big Tech. They can contribute $1 billion each in free advertising and otherwise any sum of money and services they want to because rich white billionaire racists are exempt from all laws.

However, like the many to most progressive, the OPer's view is that super rich white men can do anything they want and ignore any laws they want to because progressivism is anti-liberal corporate-fascist authoritarianism.
 
If one is free to discriminate (aka deny service to) folks based on political affiliation or viewpoint....

This is not what has happened. This is right-wing propaganda taking advantage of the more emotional and dense.

Trump and his coven of traitors have not been chastised for conservatism or even really a view point. Since their view point is based on obvious lies, they really have no view point. As can easily be observed, conservatism continues to be expressed from tens of millions of people and virtually all Republicans still express their opinions (even those who helped Trump create so many traitors among our population.

No, Trump & Co. is being chastised because they frequently employ damaging lies that have grown to become an actual national threat in terms of security and health. And corporations, which love tax-cuts and what Trump has pushed their way since 2017, would rather acknowledge the disgusting traitorous garbage that he is than thank him for our free tax dollars. That's how bad these people are. **** 'em all and their malicious abuse of our Rights.
 
Last edited:
gay wedding cake...

Does that baker own over 80% of bakeries in the world and get suppliers to ban deliveries to bakeries that will decorate a wedding cake for same sex couples? That is what Big Tech does.

What is Jack Dorsey's religion in relation to conservatives and Republicans? He's never said he is exercising his religion, has he?

It also is significant that the bakery was not incorporated. Inherently, incorporating to eliminate personal liability equally eliminates personal rights - or at least used to.
 
Strangely, I could argue that none are, AND all are "violations of free speech."

You see, freedom of expression is a two way street. Those who wish to "express" under such freedoms are able to do so, meanwhile those who don't wish to listen to such expression are also free to do so.

However, IMO the problem is being bogged down with the idea that freedom of expression is a right being granted by the Constitution under the 1st Amendment, and thus only a bar against government censorship. This misses the point entirely, as the issue is not simply one where it can be "enforced" by government power, but rather an ideal of general freedom which should be embraced by society as a whole.

Thus IMO whenever ANY actor seeks to suppress speech it does not like, that should be considered a violation of freedom of speech.

There are all sorts of methods to respond to speech one does not like, the easiest being simply voting with one's feet...i.e. not listening, watching, or participating. I do that quite often here in this Forum. ;)

Thus one could argue that all three actions are simply "voting with one's feet."

ON the other hand the problem with many who claim that social media, acting as "private companies" may ban or otherwise inhibit expression with impunity undermines the original views that such "media" are the new "marketplace of ideas." You know, the argument used when Twitter prevented President Trump from blocking responses to his Tweets way back when? A "privilege" still accorded to "non-political" members of that "marketplace."

So IMO all three are tacit, if not explicit violations of free speech.
Y'all keep falling back to "speech we don't like".

What we don't like is bald faced lies scientifically crafted told by liars.

That never for one second thought they were telling the truth.

Lies that led to an act of insurrection.

Lies that convinced those people that they were heroes saving their nation from gay commie aliens.
 
There is no meaningful sense in which Twitter is a "private company". Also commercial freedom of association has not existed in this country for over half a century.
That would be wrong.
 
If one is free to discriminate (aka deny service to) folks based on political affiliation or viewpoint is it then OK (for a business) to have (exercise?) the viewpoint that only people which they agree with (politically) will be served?
It is OK actually, so long as the business isn't violating some law to the contrary, such as the CRA that barred discrimination based on many things (race, national origin, etc.) but not political views. In most states businesses can legally discriminate against LGBT. If some neo-Nazi walks in wearing a 6MWNE shirt, you can legally kick him out. You could also kick out or deny service to a gathering of Bernie Bros, or the Biden campaign team, or MAGA hat wearers.

What is interesting is the argument above has been 'conservative' doctrine for years, really since the CRA, that many 'conservatives' opposed. The only thing that's changed is the CRA protected minorities against discrimination - targeted against Jim Crow laws, and private businesses banning blacks from the lunch counters, etc. - and now that white Christian men are allegedly being targeted, they want big brother to protect them against the discrimination the same 'conservatives' have argued is the business owner's prerogative for decades.

FWIW, so many of these debates take it on faith that Twitter and FB et al. do discriminate based on 'political affiliation or viewpoint' and that's partly true. But they clearly allow conservatives by the 10s of millions on their platform, and roughly 99.9% or more don't face any jail time from the social media censors. What they do target is racism, bigotry, and people spreading what the moderators consider lies. And the moderators make many mistakes, and are perhaps biased, but the question is what's the remedy?
 
Y'all keep falling back to "speech we don't like".

What we don't like is bald faced lies scientifically crafted told by liars.

That never for one second thought they were telling the truth.

Lies that led to an act of insurrection.

Lies that convinced those people that they were heroes saving their nation from gay commie aliens.

In the 1930s, these people would have whined about free speech if anybody dared muzzle Hitler.

It is clear that they have no sense of gravity when it comes to appreciating exactly what they saw on January 6 and what the last few years was maliciously created among us. We have Senators walking around in bullet proof vests because of these people. And it is only a matter of time before somebody is assassinated.

Hopefully, something as responsible as Twitter, Facebook, and other corporations cracking down on them is enough to remove some of the fanaticism. Without Trump Tweeting extremism and keeping them on violent, irrational edge, maybe they will take up a hobby. Maybe Checkers or Tic-Tac-Toe.

Remember this moron?

190119190059-protest-confrontation-super-169.jpg


Funny how calling out the deplorable was just "TDS." His kind showed the conservatives masses on January 6 exactly where this was always headed; and exactly where they can shove their "TDS" denials.
 
Last edited:
Strangely, I could argue that none are, AND all are "violations of free speech."

You see, freedom of expression is a two way street. Those who wish to "express" under such freedoms are able to do so, meanwhile those who don't wish to listen to such expression are also free to do so.

However, IMO the problem is being bogged down with the idea that freedom of expression is a right being granted by the Constitution under the 1st Amendment, and thus only a bar against government censorship. This misses the point entirely, as the issue is not simply one where it can be "enforced" by government power, but rather an ideal of general freedom which should be embraced by society as a whole.

Thus IMO whenever ANY actor seeks to suppress speech it does not like, that should be considered a violation of freedom of speech.
In some sense that's correct of course - if you are banned because of your opinions or speech, your 'freedom' to use that platform to spread that opinion has been curtailed. The problem is we all would consider many such actions fine, justifiable, such as the restrictions on 'free speech' on DP, where we post now. And if a Jewish website was attacked by neo-Nazi trolls, we'd all I think approve of that website kicking them off. I'd support a gun site kicking off gun banners polluting every thread. Etc.

So society can 'embrace' that neo-Nazis and gun banners and communists and ANTIFA and anti-Semites have a right to express their views, AND also embrace that a business is free to ban them if they don't want those views promoted by their platforms. That latter is also a very important freedom, and so you have to balance those competing demands. If I ban a neo-Nazi, I'm curtailing his 'free speech rights', but if I let them pollute my platform, they will ruin the site for many other users who don't buy into their ideology. There's no clear principled reason why the latter is the preferred societal approach.

There are all sorts of methods to respond to speech one does not like, the easiest being simply voting with one's feet...i.e. not listening, watching, or participating. I do that quite often here in this Forum. ;)

Thus one could argue that all three actions are simply "voting with one's feet."

ON the other hand the problem with many who claim that social media, acting as "private companies" may ban or otherwise inhibit expression with impunity undermines the original views that such "media" are the new "marketplace of ideas." You know, the argument used when Twitter prevented President Trump from blocking responses to his Tweets way back when? A "privilege" still accorded to "non-political" members of that "marketplace."

So IMO all three are tacit, if not explicit violations of free speech.
And the right to free association gets what consideration in your view? It's the companion right to the right to free speech. I've yet to see an approach to 'social media' that can work to allow a site to ban neo-Nazis and Klukkers and radical Islamists, etc. but that would protect 'conservatives' or liberals or whoever from being banned.
 
Y'all keep falling back to "speech we don't like".

What we don't like is bald faced lies scientifically crafted told by liars.

That never for one second thought they were telling the truth.

Lies that led to an act of insurrection.

Lies that convinced those people that they were heroes saving their nation from gay commie aliens.

They're also conflating "literally calling for the murder of the political opposition en masse" with "speech we don't like."

Because they're fascists, and fascists love nothing more than telling these absurd lies.
 
In the 1930s, these people would have whined about free speech if anybody dared muzzle Hitler.

It is clear that they have no sense of gravity when it comes to appreciating exactly what they saw on January 6 and what the last few years was maliciously created among us. We have Senators walking around in bullet proof vests because of these people. And it is only a matter of time before somebody is assassinated. Hopefully, something as responsible as Twitter, Facebook, and other corporations cracking down on them is enough to remove some of the fanaticism.
I still don't know why trump just didn't buy his own private parler servers and get back at it.

What's really going on is their propagandists don't want them in silos.

They want their zombies out among the rest of us so they can bite some of us and turn them into zombies.

They want their free vector for their propaganda. That's all the whole debate is really about.
 
It is OK actually, so long as the business isn't violating some law to the contrary, such as the CRA that barred discrimination based on many things (race, national origin, etc.) but not political views. In most states businesses can legally discriminate against LGBT. If some neo-Nazi walks in wearing a 6MWNE shirt, you can legally kick him out. You could also kick out or deny service to a gathering of Bernie Bros, or the Biden campaign team, or MAGA hat wearers.

What is interesting is the argument above has been 'conservative' doctrine for years, really since the CRA, that many 'conservatives' opposed. The only thing that's changed is the CRA protected minorities against discrimination - targeted against Jim Crow laws, and private businesses banning blacks from the lunch counters, etc. - and now that white Christian men are allegedly being targeted, they want big brother to protect them against the discrimination the same 'conservatives' have argued is the business owner's prerogative for decades.

FWIW, so many of these debates take it on faith that Twitter and FB et al. do discriminate based on 'political affiliation or viewpoint' and that's partly true. But they clearly allow conservatives by the 10s of millions on their platform, and roughly 99.9% or more don't face any jail time from the social media censors. What they do target is racism, bigotry, and people spreading what the moderators consider lies. And the moderators make many mistakes, and are perhaps biased, but the question is what's the remedy?

If sites edit or remove content (are not an open platform) then what they do allow seems to be what they chose to publish. I suppose that the best remedy would be to not allow ‘open sites’ totally anonymous posting - if they get sued for user content then they can offer up the internet source identification information of the offending user if the court so orders.
 
I still don't know why trump just didn't buy his own private parler servers and get back at it.

What's really going on is their propagandists don't want them in silos.

They want their zombies out among the rest of us so they can bite some of us and turn them into zombies.

They want their free vector for their propaganda. That's all the whole debate is really about.

It's about their perpetual victimhood. "The left" is censoring them and denying them their rights.

The pathetic thing is that they are clearly far too stupid to realize that they are only lumping themselves in with the Trump crowd that they have been lately trying to distance from. Always, their irrational hatred for "the left" consumes them and overshadows all else. This is why they have so easily abandoned conservatism.

It was the same with "deplorable." It was clear who the deplorable were, yet all conservatives decided to be offended, lumping themselves into the category. But hey, 74 million of them did want more of what Trump is just this last November 3rd.
 
If sites edit or remove content (are not an open platform) then what they do allow seems to be what they chose to publish.
OK, and.....?? The 1A allows that...

I suppose that the best remedy would be to not allow ‘open sites’ totally anonymous posting - if they get sued for user content then they can offer up the internet source identification information of the offending user if the court so orders.
The question is whether or not e.g. DP is held liable for what I post. If I dox you and your identity is stolen, should you be able to sue our benevolent overlord on DP or just me? Whether the court allows or requires DP to give up my name isn't relevant - I don't know of any reason they aren't required to now if so ordered by a court through a warrant.
 
There is no meaningful sense in which Twitter is a "private company". Also commercial freedom of association has not existed in this country for over half a century.

It is a private company owned by various members of the public (individual and corporate) thru corporate shares traded in a privately owned marketplace.

Twitter is a private company who "owns" what has become a public forum. That is the issue that must be resolved thru, wait for it,... government regulation or legislation.

What trump and his acoloytes are whining about is simple reality and in no way illegal or an abrogation of his or anyone elses free speech rights. This despite Daddy spending more time whining about twitter et.al. than he did throwing his most ardent followers completely under the bus in his video AFTER his impeachment.
 
Now, Cap'n, you sell yourself short, based on your participation here I'd say your entire house was a marketplace of ideas and expression... ;)

Besides, you didn't put qualifiers in the statement I bolded. I'm glad my little love tap reminded you that there are, indeed, qualifiers required.

Corporations are people, according to your laws. They have constitutional rights. I'm pretty sure that means you can no more tell them what their TOS can be than my American cousin can hang a picture over your mantle. You've got a fair bit of work ahead of you if you would like to change that, I think - about as much work as those gun grabbers have ahead of them, if they wish to change the 2nd. Until then, well, I think it is what it is, irrespective of any tantrums the "it is what it is" president may deem fit to throw about it. ;)

I didn't think I needed to put such qualifiers, since the OP and the Poll refer to issues with "public forums" not homes, etc..

Actually, corporations are subject to all sorts of regulations. That is the case with the example of Section 230 and social/other media which has been debated often in this Forum and outside at large.
 
Last edited:
People seriously need free speech 101.

Option 1 - not a violation of freedom of speech; an exercise of freedom of contract

Option 2 - not a violation of freedom of speech; an exercise of freedom of association (anti-discrim laws generally prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, sex, disability, sexual orientation, etc. - not political affiliation or viewpoint)

Option 3 - clear and obvious violations of the freedom of speech, freedom of association, AND freedom of contract.
Option 3 has nothing to do with your question. It is not a violation of free speech to demand that you have free speech. Now if Trump demanded that he was the only Twitter tweeter then you would have a point.
 
When the government arrests you for expressing your opinion in any forum, come see me. However, if you violate the TOS you agreed to when you made your account, there is NOTHING, no law, no principle, no virtue that can legally or morally override their decision.

So what, in your opinion, makes Facebook or Twitter different than AT&T or Verizon? Verizon and AT&T are both private companies but they're not allowed to limit speech because they've been regulated as common carriers. The same should happen to social media companies.
 
Back
Top Bottom